2004 PLP 67 (MLD)
EX‑ASSISTANT WARRANT OFFICER MUHAMMAD YOUSUF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 67 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Roshan Essani and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | EX‑ASSISTANT WARRANT OFFICER MUHAMMAD YOUSUF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Air Force Act (VI of 1953)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 67 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Air Force Act (VI of 1953)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 67 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Roshan Essani and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 67 (MLD) (EX‑ASSISTANT WARRANT OFFICER MUHAMMAD YOUSUF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shafi Muhammadi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th May, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.4(xix‑a), 73 & 108, [as amended by . Pakistan Air Force (Amendment) Ordinance (XXXVIII of 1984)]‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10‑‑‑Competency of Court Martial to try cases under Hudood. Laws‑‑‑Accused had contended that `Court Martial' was not competent to try a person who was serving in Pakistan Air Force under Hudood Laws‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Accused who was serving as Assistant Warrant Officer in Pakistan Air Force was subject to Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953‑‑‑By Pakistan Air Force (Amendment) Ordinance, 1984, amendments were introduced in the Pakistan Air Force Act; 1953 whereby powers were conferred upon the Court Martial to try the cases under Hudood Laws and the right of appeal and revision was provided to accused to, prefer the same before Authorities specified in the said Act‑‑‑No other Authority, Tribunal or Court had jurisdiction to vary, modify, alter, annul set aside, revise or review any order passed by any Officer of the Force authorized under Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 16th May, 2003. MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.‑‑‑By this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has sought following relief:‑‑ (i) That the trial of the petitioner by a Court Martial and his conviction and sentences are without lawful authority and of no legal effect. (ii) it is further pleased that in the stated circumstances, the detention of the petition is wholly illegal and he is entitled to his freedom forthwith, and he be, therefore, order to be set at liberty. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in petition are that petitioner Muhammad Yousaf was serving as Assistant Warrant Officer at PAF Base Mansoor Karachi since May, 2002. The wife of petitioner lodged complaint that petitioner is committing Zina with the daughter. The petitioner was arrested and was tried by the Field General Court Martial. He was charged with offence of Zina‑bil‑Jabar and convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I., for 23‑1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs.90,
000. He was also dismissed from his service. We have heard Mr. Shafi Muhammadi learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner. It is contended that Court Martial is not competent to try a person who is serving in Pakistan Air Force under Hudood Laws. The perusal of material placed on record shows that the petitioner was serving as Assistant Warrant Officer in Pakistan Air Force as such he was subject to Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953. By Ordinance XXXVIII of 1984 the amendments were introduced in Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953 and powers were conferred upon the Court Martial to try the cases under Hudood Laws and the right of appeal and revision was provided to the accused to prefer the same before the Authorities specified in the Act. Thus no other Authority, Tribunal or Court has jurisdiction to vary, modify, alter, annual, set aside, revise or review any order passed by any officer of the Force authorized under the Act. Resultantly the petition stands dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A‑52/K Petition dismissed.